raid performance

[rajanm1]

i have two sata 300GB seagate baracuda 7200.9 in nvidia raid 0 (from a msi 750i mobo) and was wondering if there was any way to test their performance and in particular their access time, as each drive is supposed to be 8.0 ms and i wanted to know how good my raid setup was.

thanks

[fritzman]

Take your pick... do a search for HDTach; HDTune; Atto; I think you could even use Everest or SiSoft Sandra...

Have a quick scan through the matrix sticky above and you'll get a pretty good idea.

[rajanm1]

thanks, used all of them now and found hd tach to be te easiest to use

results: random access 11.9ms, cpu utilisation 4%, average read 108.5MB/s

are these ok?, i thought that as access time was 8.0ms in each drive it would be lower and overall performance faster?

what is the best raid 0 to use? (nvidia or windows)

[youngbuck]

I've heard some say that Windows is better than on board RAID in certain applications, but I don't know what those Apps are. If it were me, I'd go with Nvidia. Either way your CPU is handling any RAID calculations.

[fritzman]

thanks, used all of them now and found hd tach to be te easiest to use

results: random access 11.9ms, cpu utilisation 4%, average read 108.5MB/s

are these ok?, i thought that as access time was 8.0ms in each drive it would be lower and overall performance faster?

what is the best raid 0 to use? (nvidia or windows)

Here's mine on a fairly fresh Vista 64-bit install (with everything running ie - nothing that would normally be running has been disabled or anything)

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i82/nzfritzman/HDTach-C-Writebackenabled.jpg
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i82/nzfritzman/HDTach-D-Writebackenabled.jpg
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i82/nzfritzman/HDTune_Benchmark_IntelRaid0Volume.png
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i82/nzfritzman/HDTune_Benchmark_IntelRaid0Volume-W.png

You can really see the difference that having write-back enabled makes in the bottom two shots.

I think my higher cpu utilisation is because of the Picasa scan that's going on in the background right now, and I think Windows is still doing it's search index thing also.

[rajanm1]

Here's mine on a fairly fresh Vista 64-bit install (with everything running ie - nothing that would normally be running has been disabled or anything)

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i82/nzfritzman/HDTach-C-Writebackenabled.jpg
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i82/nzfritzman/HDTach-D-Writebackenabled.jpg
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i82/nzfritzman/HDTune_Benchmark_IntelRaid0Volume.png
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i82/nzfritzman/HDTune_Benchmark_IntelRaid0Volume-W.png

You can really see the difference that having write-back enabled makes in the bottom two shots.

I think my higher cpu utilisation is because of the Picasa scan that's going on in the background right now, and I think Windows is still doing it's search index thing also.

wow, howcomes yours is about 2000mb/s in burst and mine is only like 150? also your average is a lot higer aswell :shrug:
how do you enable write-back?

[fritzman]

It's probably that I have 4 x drives in an array, as per my sig.

[Deanzo]

Your times/marks in post 3 are right on the money for your set up.

[rajanm1]

oh yeh, thanks

[i686]

hi'
here is mine, what do you think, is it ok?
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l208/webjoyz/hdtack_bench-raid0jpg.jpg

it's a raid0 with 100go, 2x250gb WD.

i686

[tuskenraider]

hi'
here is mine, what do you think, is it ok?
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l208/webjoyz/hdtack_bench-raid0jpg.jpg

it's a raid0 with 100go, 2x250gb WD.

i686 You look like you're on the JMicron controller since your STR is being PCI bus limited to 120MB/s or so. The graph would be fine then. You should be on the Intel ICH controller as it will give you better performance and it seems to be according to your sig, but if you really are on the Intel controller, you've got something limiting it's performance.

[Randyman...]

IMO - the only "REAL" HD Benchmark apps use large filesizes so you don't get the "Artificial boost" of the Cache (even in the "Burst Rate").

Someone posted a link to ATTO-256MB Version a while back - it allows upto 256MB tests (the "Standard" ATTO is 32MB IIRC), and benches reads AND writes!!! It is the only free app I have found that accurately benches my Hardware RAID-5 array (otherwise, the benches are sick fast - unreasonably fast due to the RAID Card's Cache)...

Here is an old ATTO-256MB Bench from the RAID-5: (It's a little faster in its current config)

http://img303.imageshack.us/img303/4471/attoareca1rw9.jpg

If I use the 32MB setting, ALL of the benches are just stupid fast (innacurately so)...



PPS - Here is the link to ATTO-256 MB (Courtesy of Casix):

http://www.hugesystems.com/supportspace/bench32.exe

Run that at 256MB, and see what you get...


:cool:

[i686]

You look like you're on the JMicron controller since your STR is being PCI bus limited to 120MB/s or so. The graph would be fine then. You should be on the Intel ICH controller as it will give you better performance and it seems to be according to your sig, but if you really are on the Intel controller, you've got something limiting it's performance.
hi'
nop, I'm on the intel matrix one, but you're right something is holing this back a bit ...
the 2 hdd aren't the same, one has 16mb cache the other one 8mb only .. and that might be it :(
or, one drive has a cap for choosing between sata 150 or 300, may be I should take it off as the other one doen't have this and it's a sataII ?

sometime ...I'll change for a couple of WD raid ready 250gb, currently around 73€ ....
tempting ;)
dont have the bucks for raptors :(

i686

[i686]

hi'
as you can see in my sig, I changed the ram for Crucial Ballistix,
jeez what a jump :) 4.4.4.12 @ 800mhz ruuns like a charm ;)

I took off a (back)cap on the first drive of the array, and now reach 140 ... but still not at the top and I guess why :(
the first drive is a maxtor 250gb 16mb cache
the second one is a WD 250 gb 8mb cache

so, not indentical ... difference of cache .. that might be it,
beside, on boot screen I always see the jmicron raid popup,
telling my 2 dvd(rom and rw) ...
do, I really need this controller as my 2 optical drive are plug on?
do this jmicron comes to disturb a bit around the intel matrix?

if I turn jmicron off, I don't see my dvd's in windows :(

I make another bench with tack and Atto and I'll post ...

i686

[bing]

I took off a (back)cap on the first drive of the array, and now reach 140 ... but still not at the top and I guess why :(
the first drive is a maxtor 250gb 16mb cache
the second one is a WD 250 gb 8mb cache


Not bad after pulling those jumpers ! Yes, that is about it since 140MB/s / 2 drives = 70MBps each. Its normal now ! :)


on boot screen I always see the jmicron raid popup,
telling my 2 dvd(rom and rw) ...
do, I really need this controller as my 2 optical drive are plug on?
do this jmicron comes to disturb a bit around the intel matrix?

if I turn jmicron off, I don't see my dvd's in windows :(

I make another bench with tack and Atto and I'll post ...


As long you still using PATA/IDE optical drive, you will have to live with that pesky Jmicron since ICH8R doesn't support IDE interface anymore.

Unless, you dump those drives and replace with SATA optical drives, then you can safely disable JMicron since you won't use it anymore.

[i686]

Not bad after pulling those jumpers ! Yes, that is about it since 140MB/s / 2 drives = 70MBps each. Its normal now ! :)



As long you still using PATA/IDE optical drive, you will have to live with that pesky Jmicron since ICH8R doesn't support IDE interface anymore.

Unless, you dump those drives and replace with SATA optical drives, then you can safely disable JMicron since you won't use it anymore.
hi'
thanks for fast reply ;)
here is 2 screenshots I made this morning :
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l208/webjoyz/hardware/Atto_2.jpg
and with hd-Tach
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l208/webjoyz/hardware/hd-tach_2.jpg

as you said it's better BUT ...
and the jmicron popup, I'll live with :lol:

so, it's a bit faster, can feel it, but definitly looking for these 2 WD raid ready ...
and I'll set it from scratch with a raid0 80gb, not 100 like now:)
possibly with a triple boot with Linux & Vista ...(lilo does this perfectly, XP first on raid0+1, then vista on a different hdd + Linux and boot loader on the mbr of the raid0 ;) )
and I'll keep my second rig for Linux Slackware and FreeBSD ;)

i686

[bwanaaa]

randyman,

the link to hugesystems is down. any idea where else to find atto 256?